new york times and war editorial

During my last couple years at Princeton Seminary, I began a tradition of picking up the Sunday edition of the NY Times and chilling/dining alone at a local [all you can eat] Chinese restaurant in Princeton. It was nice to just take my time to read, enjoy good food, read, enjoy more good food, and drink good tea.

That’s a long intro to say that I miss reading the NY times regularly. I still surf the NY Times on the web but it’s a different experience altogether. Anyway…

Did anyone check out the editorial about the Iraq war in yesterday’s edition? I want to be sensitive here. There are many varying opinions about the war; we have numerous war veterans at Quest [through the church merger]; and there are couple families currently who have a parent in Iraq or are prepping to head off in the upcoming year. In an earlier entry, I shared some brief thoughts:

War sucks. Always has and always will. Because of the current national and global climate surrounding the Iraq War, this is obviously a very sensitive issue for many. One thing that is clear to me is that you can question the wisdom and rationale behind the war and the government and still support our country’s troops. This is not an oxymoron…it’s clear that the war is as “unpopular” as it has ever been and yet, we are sending more troops. At this point, that may not necessarily be a bad idea but everyone agrees: this has not turned out anywhere close to what anyone envisioned. While it would be a horrible idea to simply pick up and leave, when will we hear a clear “exit plan” from the current administration? In an article I read online at Sojourners, it contends that 36 cents of every federal income dollar is used for war – to pay for wars past and wars present. If our budget indeed is an example of our “moral document” – what are we saying to ourselves, to our children, and to the rest of the world?

On the local front, we have a family that drives up from Fort Lewis to worship at our church. For the purpose of this blog, I’ll just leave it with some nebulous information. There are several young children in this family. Both Dad and Mom are in the Army. Last year, the family was “forced” to be separated as Dad was sent to Iraq. But alas, he’s set to return in couple months [which is now this month] from his year duty. Kids are excited as they miss their father! The sucky of all sucky news: A month after Dad returns, Mom is now slated to head off to Iraq for about a year. What kinds of @#$& is that?

While support for the war is difficult to find nowadays except on FOX news, I haven’t come across many sharp editorials from major newspapers which is the reason why I was very surprised to read the strong piece entitled, ‘The Road Home’ in this past Sunday’s edition of the NY Times. It calls the US to basically leave Iraq:

It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit.

Like many Americans, we have put off that conclusion, waiting for a sign that President Bush was seriously trying to dig the United States out of the disaster he created by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, in the face of global opposition, and without a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

At first, we believed that after destroying Iraq’s government, army, police and economic structures, the United States was obliged to try to accomplish some of the goals Mr. Bush claimed to be pursuing, chiefly building a stable, unified Iraq. When it became clear that the president had neither the vision nor the means to do that, we argued against setting a withdrawal date while there was still some chance to mitigate the chaos that would most likely follow.

While Mr. Bush scorns deadlines, he kept promising breakthroughs — after elections, after a constitution, after sending in thousands more troops. But those milestones came and went without any progress toward a stable, democratic Iraq or a path for withdrawal. It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor. Whatever his cause was, it is lost. [read full editorial]

Related

34 Responses

I do like the idea that our budget is our moral document. And while were spending 36% on war, there isn’t enough money for health care or schools here at home, or even to help with humanitarian issues abroad. We should have been out of this thing a long time ago. Is it 2008 yet?

Regarding the NY Times…oh, I agree. They have the best newspaper writers anywhere. They write in such a way that carries you along through an article. I can find myself half-way through reading an article on a subject I normally wouldn’t read on, just because the writing is so good. SPU provides both Seattle papers and the NY Times free on campus for students every week day. That is in the top 5 things I will miss about SPU.

If any of you have read the recent postings on my blog, you’ve probably come away with the idea that I’m pro-war. The truth is, I’m not–I want us out of Iraq yesterday–rather, I consider myself “Pro-Iraq.” What’s the difference? The difference is that I believe in the Iraqi people. I believe in their ability to restore their wonderful country to its prior glory. I believe in their right as a country to live in the same freedom we enjoy. This means that I only want us there as long as it takes to get Iraq back on its feet, no longer, no less. Agreed, we are quickly approaching the point where the Iraqi government must take ownership of getting back on their own feet or cave. If they won’t stand up on their own, then, well… they’re kind of stuck and we need to get out.

Yes, many, many, many inexcusable mistakes and hypocritical comments have been made by our administration with regards to this war. I’m not denying that at all, in fact I’ll readily lay blame for the current situtaion squarely on our president and former secretary of defense. I just believe that we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to get them back up on their feet since we got them into this mess.

For the most part I found the article pretty well put together. However, there were a couple of glaring points that I see as mis-informed OR agenda-driven un-truths (I chose not to use the word “lie” because I don’t know if the author conciously chose to ignore the truth of the situation and I don’t want to be a troll):

Neither of these could be farther from the truth. Take Anbar Province–“Anbar the Impossible”–for example. Before this troop surge and the leadership General David Petraeus has provided, it had gone down hill fast and was an massive hotbed of insurgent and AQ activity. Though combat still happens now, it is SIGNIFICANTLY less frequent than before. The city is beginning to recover. Where people once were afraid to stand out in the street, you see children playing and old men chattering.

The most recent example of improvement is the city of Baqubah (“Second Chances” above) where American and Iraqi troops recently successfully completed flushing AQ from the city in “Operation: Arrowhead Ripper.”

Please read the articles I cited above, they are written by Michael Yon–a freelance journalist who has spent much of the past several years in Iraq reporting and blogging on what he sees. His views and insigts on the war carry a lot of weight and aren’t clouded by the mass media’s agendas. They are well worth your time.

Following these un-truths were two particularly refreshing (though unfortunate) truths that very few journalists have had the guts to say:

Truth #1: One of Mr. Bush’s arguments against withdrawal is that it would lead to civil war. That war is raging, right now, and it may take years to burn out. Iraq may fragment into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics, and American troops are not going to stop that from happening.

Sadly, this is very, very true and is the result of many mistakes that were made after our extremely successful invasion. As we all know, we chose to dismantle their entire law-enforcement and military system afterwards instead of using them to our advantage and building allies. As a result, we made fierce enemies out of the tens of thousands of people who’s jobs we dissolved. [begin sarcasm]This was one of our more Brilliant decisions.[end sarcasm]

I noticed one aspect of the situation over there that the author did not mention.

Oversight #1: Withdrawing from Iraq asap will only create a massive breeding ground for Al Queda and other terrorists.Supporting Citation: (Couldn’t find the link on Michael Yon’s website with the time I have, but it’s there… I promise😉

We cannot, repeat cannot withdraw until Iraq is capable of defending themselves and keeping AQ out. If the insurgents and terrorists get wind that we’re leaving, or that our withdrawl is contingent upon their defeat they will either step up attacks to make it look like they are driving us out of the country or they will begin to lay low–creating the illusion that they have been defeated–until we leave when the violence will resume.

Again, I agree, I want us out of there yesterday. However, we cannot leave until the job is done and Iraq can take care of itself. Why the contradictory opinions? Because my little brother will be receiving his Army Officer’s commission next June and I don’t want him to have to go back there or get killed by some terrorist who was trained in Iraq after we left and didn’t finish the job.

I’m not going to dispute your Michael Yon sources because I know he’s a freelance journalist (the best kind!).

Where I believe I diverge with you is on the process to repair all the damage we (“we” = the collective Coalition forces) have created, not just from a strategic standpoint, but also a political one.

When we entered conflict in 2003, we were essentially raising a middle finger to the 150+ other member states that suggested we wait it out, engage in further diplomacy, etc. In other words, you’re expecting the rebel to essentially do a hero’s work. And this is what I find remarkable about this continued conflict.

What I’m trying to grasp here is why we expect complete, democratic, and autonomous solvency for Iraq as if it’ll come as smoothly as the American Revolution did (smirk). We didn’t espouse those values when we chose to go to war, nor did we do so when we left Afghanistan to the dogs, nor when we ignored the far more treacherous (well, for Africa, not for us) Darfur conflict.

All this bickering…how about a solution, m@?
— Complete military withdrawal from Iraq with UN oversight
— Create a team of international economists, diplomacy specialists, political science professors, etc. to guide the Iraqi government in economic and political reform for its citizens
— Engage in discussions with the European Union, ASEAN, and NATO in order to develop robust trade alliances within the Middle East regions

Of course, my suggestions are based off of one key assumption: they’re fighting the military and political Coalition, not Iraq. Rhetorically, I ask this: why hasn’t al Qaeda attacked Germany, Belgium or Switzerland on their soil — they’re clearly as free as the US and UK are, and Germany’s economy is humming.

Way back in 2003 I was quite active in the Anti-war movement for two-reasons: I wasn’t convinced at the rationale for invasion that it would lead to a safer world, and two, because I didn’t think that morally a US invasion would meet just-war criteria.

That being said, I tend to upset my fellow activists when I say that even though I still stand by my feelings that the initial invasion was a mistake–I do not think a precipitous withdrawl is a morally responsible option. We’ve helped make this mess, thus we owe it to the Iraqi people to do everything possible to help them. It may in fact be that our pressence itself will cause more violence and unrest, and if that is the case we should proceed to draw down troops. But at the very least, I think that if we can help restore calm and order then we should be dilligent.

For one, we need to end the torture policy immediately. The Abu Grahib scandly may have single handedly destroyed our hopes for peace there. Secondly, we need to do a complete audit of American reconstruction efforts. The Iraqi economy must be restored, and for all the hundreds of billions of dollars going in– we’re not seeing results. Thirdly, we need to engage the situation diplomatically which means talking with Iran and Syria.

Just as I couldn’t see justification for invading Iraq in the first place, so I can’t see justification for abandoning the Iraqi people to the crisis we’ve precipitated.

I agree with you, I think we made a mess, and we need to help clean it up. However, I think our very presence is incendiary to many people there (understandibly so…there may be some bad reasons they hate us, but there are a lot of justified reasons too). I think we need to humbly go back to the world-community, admit our mistake, and fund a restoration effort that will probably have to be carried out by someone other than the US military.

Thanks for the input. Allow me to briefly clarify a point that I made (and I do mean “briefly” because I’m typing this from my Treo). By “enjoy the same freedoms we do” with regards to the Iraqi people I think that it would be horribly ignorant of me to think that these freedoms and government would look and function just like ours. It all needs to be done the Iraqi way, both for legitimacy and functional reasons. I meant “freedoms” in a more general sense, as in freedom from oppression and the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to borrow from our own Declaration of Independence. Does that help clarify my thinking?

PE #8: Dude, if President Bush did that I think I’d have a cow, a heart attack, and poop a brick all at the same time.😉

Though in all seriousness I heartily agree that this would be a HUGE step in the right direction.

I guess my opinions on this subject most closely match what Blake has said. Going to war in Iraq was an elective policy decision that sounded good on paper (establish a free pro-western state in Iraq to catalyze democratic transformation in the Middle East) that didn’t work out for a variety of reasons (hubris, naivete, razor-thin margin of legality, poor management, etc). Where do we go from here? Personally, I have an instinctual aversion to leaving Iraq. I have to admit that some of this comes from pride. I detest the thought of sending the message that the United States cannot or will not accomplish something it has said it is going to do. However, I would like to think that the larger part of my desire for the US to remain in Iraq stems from the belief that we have an obligation to the Iraqi people and that this obligation is best met by staying in Iraq. At this point I think the morality of whether or not we remain in Iraq should be decided by what best serves the long term interests of the Iraqi people. This is a tough question to answer. The article contrasts these two statements:

“Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate.”

“But Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse.”

I have a hard time accepting the statement that continued US presence in Iraq is worse (for the Iraqis and their neighbors) than what would happen if we left. If that really is true than we should leave. However, I vigorously reject the isolationist notion that we should just abandon situations that are bloody, messy and difficult. Especially when those messes are partially of our own making.

One thing I find fascinating about this whole thing is the paradigm shift. Wasn’t our initial purpose for entering Iraq the pursuit of toppling Saddam Hussein and isolating his massive stockpile of WMD’s? Weren’t we fed the line that our national security, and those of our allies, were the sole reasons for entering the war? There was no talk of liberating the country until we realized that all those initial goals weren’t achievable because no threat existed in the first place.

There was a piece on the news last night about women who have fled Iraq and ended up as dancer/prostitutes in Syria. Dozens of clubs have sprung up on the outskirts of Damascus that employ these women and they have no other way of supporting themselves. I couldnt help but think that we are partly responsible for the victimization they face every night.

Actually, I just watched the video again, and I can hardly stop crying. I was wrong to call them “women”. They’re girls. Mostly teenagers, some much younger. One looked about as tall as my 6-year old. The reporter also talks about how there are young girls whose parents are educated professionals (doctors, teachers, engineers) and they have been forced into a situation where this is the only way they can get money – giving up their daughters.

Can someone please explain to me how American is not responsible for this, at least in part?

We invaded their country on misinformed pretense. When it was discovered that our idea was ill conceived, we continued to persist. One of the results of our presence there is that Iraq an unsafe place to live and anyone who could get out did so. Those people are now refugees because of a war we started that was a bad idea in the first place. When the rest of the world-community was telling us there was a better way, we could not listen. I guess one of the consequences of being the strongest is that your imagination becomes dominated by ways to use that strength. And now, those families give up their teenagers or younger to the sex trade. Because of us. Because of the war we started based on bad information that we now know is not true. What is our responsibility to those girls, those families? Their lives are ruined, and for what? So America could flex its muscle when it couldnt think of any other way to solve a problem?

Let’s take WWII for example. I don’t blame America for the thousands of civilians that were likely killed by bombing runs on major German cities? No; we were retaliating in a way that would protect our interests and those of the allies. Granted, a smaller loss of life would have been far better, but it was clear that Germany was bent on imperial tyranny.

However, do I blame the Allies for bombing runs on Dresden, days after the war was arguably, strategically lost? Absolutely; it had no intrinsic value to the entire war effort.

I look at Jennifer’s article in the same way: if it’s simply our presence in Iraq that’s causing them to flee, then I can’t find fault in America. However, if our presence has caused the quality of life to deteriorate on the border beyond the realm of how it was during Hussein’s reign, then I have to believe it’s partially our fault.

not sure where my previous comment went- i think all the links flagged the spam filter. anyhow, a quick question for blake and chris:

if we’re so decidedly “pro-iraq” and we have “the iraqis’ best interest in mind” by continuing our occupation without a timeline for withdrawal, then why do we continually ignore the votes of their democratically elected parliament (and the vast public opinion) desiring for us to set a timetable and get out?

basically, if we’re so intent on doing what’s best for them, then why do we prevent them from having a voice in the process? the few iraqis in opposition of a timeline for withdrawal are on the bush payroll, in his political pocket, or both.

I guess I’d argue that the refugee situation isn’t directly our fault, however, I am open to dialogue. Just to argue semantics here, is it really our fault if the reason they left is because AQ started attacking their children? Or because the insurgents stopped caring about the innocent civilians in the way? If those are the reasons they left, then I’d argue that it isn’t our fault.

However, if they left because things got unsafe and they didn’t want their families in a war zone, then I could agree that it is partially our fault.

Jennifer: I think we’re making assumptions that life was great or perfect before the US taking Saddam down. And that’s simply not true. Life was horrendous and that’s a documented fact for many. This is not to say that there are consequences and peoples’ life are impacted but in the long run, freedom and democracy will be available.

A wiser woman would go to bed now (it’s almost midnight), but I’m not too wise. I’m just going to recap a few things I recall from 2003, prior to invasion.

I recall hearing some in-depth NPR stories about the history of the Sunnis, Shiia and Kurds in Iraq, and their centuries-long blood feud. The experts and career state department people with extensive middle east experience predicted that with no organized and citizen-supported opposition, the ouster of Saddam would unleash civil war. (These experts were summarily dismissed in favor of the advice of PNAC, a bunch of ideologues with no military service, who wanted to invade Iraq and were looking for a pretense years before 9/11. )

PNAC members are now warily backing away from the Iraq disaster, claiming that it was a great idea, but poor execution. However many who are trying to support democracy around the globe contended prior to the invasion that if you are picking a place to seed democracy, Iraq is the last place you’d choose, as it has none of the prerequisites for success. This seems to be accurate as we are seeing not democracy but a tacking toward theocracy in the midst of a F5 storm.

I recall staring in shock at my radio in the late fall of ’02 as NPR reported on the growing support for “pre-emptive invasion”. What the &*#*(? Since when do we invade countries pre-emptively? I think “pre-emptive invasion” = “start a war”.

I recall that the CIA report on Iraq given to Congress only (days, at most weeks) after the vote authorizing Bush to use war stated that while they believed Iraq had WMDs, they never supported the belief that Iraqi weapons had anything with any kind of range that could even begin to threaten the US. They also opined that Saddam would only use them as a last resort if we invaded Iraq. They saw him as desperate to hold onto power and starting a war with the west didn’t fit his MO. (The Kuwait invasion was launched only after he got an arguable green light from the US, with the message through diplomatic channels that we would view such an invasion as a “border dispute”.)

Why don’t we invade North Korea? They actually have WMDs that could threaten us. Would we really have marched 150,000 of America’s finest into Iraq to be vaporized? Of course BushCo knew there were no WMDs! We only invade countries we can kick the crap out of. Remember Rummy’s prediction? The war would take “6 days, maybe 6 weeks, certainly not 6 months”.

I recall that Bush ordered the weapons inspectors out of Iraq in order to invade on schedule (the schedule being determined by the onset of spring and favorable weather). I recall him stating in his re-election campaign that Saddam wouldn’t let the inspectors in. They were in. They were getting grudging cooperation. Saddam wouldn’t let them into his private palaces. That former inspector guy, I’m blanking on his name, said in an interview that I recall hearing, after the invasion, that under Clinton the US tried to assassinate Saddam using the international inspectors in some way. This pissed off the inspector, who said that ever after it was tough to do the inspections. But that they were making progress and had asked to be allowed to continue. But Bush ordered them out.

Powell did not want to invade because our military is not designed for urban, guerrilla-style wars. Top Pentagon brass were against the war for the same reason. They were over-ruled by Bush political appointees that had an agenda but no experience. Cheney and his cabal served up the war to Bush, and he ate it.

The war has cost us dearly in money, lives lost and destroyed here and in Iraq, it has destroyed much of what our diplomatic corps have spent most of the last century creating, it has weakened our military and strengthened our enemies. We are less safe. And every bit of it was foreseen and foreseeable.

Get out, stay in…it’s all a total mess with no good way out. We made the mess and now we are lying in it. So are our troops. So are the Iraqi citizens. And now the war may drag Pakistan and India (who do have nukes), Iran, and others in the middle east into its orbit.

Are we responsible for the chaos we have unleashed? I for one am assuming we are and praying for God’s forgiveness and grace. Are others responsible too? I’ll leave that one to God to decide.

When we invaded Iraq I remember I finally made up my mind that I will not rely on the major news channels (CNN, FOX, MSNBC) as my main resource for news. The reasons our government gave for going into Iraq were clearly partial and I still feel duped.

In the same way that many were duped by the media or the government, I feel like we are being duped right now. They have turned on the government and doing all that they can to make life difficult for the Bush administration.

A tyrant was in charge there. We have toppled the tyrant and now we must help build an infrastructure. Precious lives are being lost and there are many consequences but we must hold steadfast.